The Indiana Supreme Court issued a complex ruling Thursday in a medical malpractice case involving a truck driver whose routine emergency room visit for nausea and vomiting resulted in a foot amputation three weeks later.
In *Zainab Abbas, M.D. v. Hetep Bilal Neter-Nu* (Ind. 2025), the court addressed multiple issues arising from a jury verdict that favored patient Hetep Bilal "Franklyn" Neter-Nu against Methodist Hospital in Gary, Dr. Zainab Abbas, and Nurse Morgan Mittler.
Neter-Nu, a truck driver, visited Methodist Hospital's emergency room on July 27, 2015, seeking treatment for nausea and vomiting. According to court records, he received fluids and medication during his visit. However, complications from his treatment allegedly led to the amputation of his foot within three weeks of the initial hospital visit.
The case proceeded to trial in Lake Superior Court, where a jury returned a verdict in favor of Neter-Nu against all defendants. The health care providers subsequently appealed the decision, raising multiple claims related to evidentiary issues and jury instructions.
Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Goff delivered an opinion that addressed several key legal issues while providing a mixed outcome for the parties involved. The court held that the trial court made two significant errors during the proceedings.
First, the Indiana Supreme Court found that the trial court erred when it denied Methodist Hospital's Trial Rule 50(A) motion for partial judgment on the evidence. Rule 50(A) motions, also known as directed verdict motions, allow courts to remove cases or claims from jury consideration when the evidence is insufficient to support a reasonable jury verdict.
Second, the court determined that the trial court incorrectly calculated prejudgment interest in the case. Prejudgment interest compensates plaintiffs for the time value of money from when damages occurred until judgment is entered.
However, the high court sided with the trial court on other disputed issues. The justices found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to give the health care providers' proposed jury instructions. Jury instructions are critical because they guide jurors on how to apply the law to the facts they determine from the evidence.
Additionally, the court ruled that the trial court properly excluded certain evidence that the defendants sought to introduce during trial. The opinion does not detail the specific nature of this excluded evidence, but evidentiary rulings often involve testimony or documents that courts find irrelevant, prejudicial, or inadmissible under evidence rules.
The case's procedural history reflects the complexity of medical malpractice litigation in Indiana. The matter originated in Lake Superior Court under Judge Bruce D. Parent before proceeding to the Indiana Court of Appeals. The Indiana Supreme Court ultimately accepted the case for review through a petition to transfer, indicating the legal issues presented were of sufficient importance to warrant the state's highest court's attention.
The unanimous decision, with Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa, Slaughter, and Molter joining Justice Goff's opinion, demonstrates the court's agreement on the legal principles involved despite the case's complexity.
As a result of the ruling, the case will return to the trial court with specific instructions. The court directed that Methodist Hospital's Rule 50(A) motion be granted, effectively removing the hospital from liability in the case. Additionally, the trial court must recalculate prejudgment interest based on what the court termed "the Providers' statutory liability."
The decision highlights important aspects of Indiana's medical malpractice law and the standards courts apply when reviewing jury verdicts. Medical malpractice cases often involve complex medical testimony and require juries to determine whether health care providers met applicable standards of care.
The ruling also demonstrates the multi-layered nature of appellate review, where higher courts examine not only the ultimate verdict but also the procedural decisions made during trial. Issues such as jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and post-trial motions can significantly impact the final outcome of litigation.
For the plaintiff, Neter-Nu, the ruling represents a partial victory, as the jury verdict against the remaining defendants stands. However, the removal of Methodist Hospital from liability and the recalculation of prejudgment interest may affect the total compensation available.
The health care providers achieved mixed results, successfully challenging certain trial court decisions while failing to overturn the jury's finding of liability against Dr. Abbas and Nurse Mittler.
The case will now return to Lake Superior Court for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's instructions, including the entry of judgment in favor of Methodist Hospital and the recalculation of damages and interest against the remaining liable parties.